Navigate:

Gap widens over missile system

Romania agreed to host a missile system similar to the one on the USS Monterey (pictured).
Close

At issue is a disagreement over the meaning of a clause in the treaty’s preamble, which recognizes “the existence of the interrelationship between strategic offensive arms and strategic defensive arms, [and] that this interrelationship will become more important as strategic nuclear arms are reduced, and that current strategic defensive arms do not undermine the viability and effectiveness of the strategic offensive arms of the parties.”

Moscow sees the provision as limiting any missile defense system that might render ineffective the strategic offensive arms allowed under the treaty. And Russian officials have hinted that continued disagreement on this point could threaten the entire pact.

Text Size

-

+

reset

“We have been clear that the United States cannot accept limitations or restrictions on the development or deployment of U.S. missile defenses,” Rose Gottemoeller, assistant secretary of state for arms control, verification and compliance, said Friday.

“Persistent misperceptions about the capabilities of the proposed NATO system — specifically that the system would target Russian ICBMs or undermine Russia’s strategic deterrent — are unfounded,” she added. “We have worked at the highest levels of the United States government to be transparent about our missile defense plans and capabilities and to explain that our planned missile defense programs do not threaten Russia or its security,” she said.

“It’s not uncommon for two countries to have a different view of the meaning of a treaty,” said Joseph Cirincione, president of the Ploughshares Fund, an organization that fights the spread and use of nuclear weapons.

Cirincione said Russia has both overplayed the treaty’s impact on missile defense for domestic political purposes and has an exaggerated view of the proposed NATO shield’s impact on their offensive systems.

Even though U.S. officials have assured their Russian counterparts that NATO’s shield is not aimed at them, he said, “They don’t believe us. They just don’t believe us.” And this is the rationale behind efforts in the current talks to convince the Russians to participate in the construction and operation of NATO missile defenses, he added.

But Cirincione said congressional Republicans were also playing politics with missile defense.

“They are ideologically opposed to arms control,” he asserted. “They never stop arguing against it.”

Readers' Comments (3)

So our idiot President signed a deal with Russia that would prevent us from building a missle defense shield? If he has not, then why must we "negotiate" withe them? The "President" is a walking disaster and must be removed.

There is so much wrong with this picture on so many levels. For example:

1. If I were a legal advisor for a foreign government I would recommend that no treaties be signed with the US because the legal status of the signature (Barry Soetoro) is completely in question and therefore treaties are in question. The courts have not addressed the multitude of complaints around "Obama's" natural born citizenship status, his alledged forged Birth certificates and his fraudulent social security number. We are currently in a 3 year blank period of US history with more questions than there are answers from the Obama Administration.

2. Turkey is an unreliable ally. Their actions in the Arab world in the last two weeks alone including their threats against Israel brings into question their status as a viable NATO member. Turkey, as we speak are reported to be dismantling the IFF (Identification Friend or Foe) systems on their aircraft so that they can launch missles against Israel. Housing a radar system in Turkey that is likely to be turned off makes no military sense. If WWIII breaks out it could very well start between Greece, Israel and Turkey which wasn't even on the "radar" a year ago. The fact that governments are changing so rapidly leaves a missile system in question.

3. NATO itself is an unreliable organization. The poor performance in Libya suggests that NATO is incompetent. Even today, Ghadafi is unaccounted for (after 3 weeks of incompetent reports that he was surrounded) and in fact, likely has thousands of supporters, ammunition and weapons to continue the fight. Had the US not assisted NATO they wouldn't even get this far. As a military power NATO is powerless. It has no manpower, no weapons systems and is a faint political shell of what it was 20 years ago. For the US to even be a part of NATO under these new realities is quite questionable. Also, see point 2 above. Civil disunion, banking collapse and war on the periphery is on the upswing and Europe is completely incompetent to understand this and at a time when the US is probably more of a Pacific/Asian country than it is a European country.

4. Eastern Europe has been neglected since G.W. Bush left office (just like most US allies), so perturbing Russia has no political benefit. The US was completely ineffective in stopping Russia's war on Georgia just 4 years ago or so, and what is to be gained by challenging Russia with no complete defense plan in place to back up the missiles?

5. The primary target of the missiles is said to be Iran, but Iran has not been challenged either. There is no Arab spring in Iran, Iran is moving head strong into nuclear weapons development and just having an empty missile system isn't going to stop them especially when the US and/or NATO do not have complete control over all the elements (see 2 above).

6. The treaty does not address new sophisticated weapons that Russia (and China) is bringing on line and doesn't address China at all.

All in all, the events of the last 3 years shows that political upheaval is so widespread and so alien to the natural order we have seen over the past several decades (including the election of the Kenyan National in the US-unchallenged by the courts) that a missile system will rust as fast as it is built.